Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Businesses Television Media Media (Apple) Apple

Video iPod Apple's First Bad Move? 598

An anonymous reader writes "Apple has had a lot of success with the iPod brand the past few years. The NYT has an article up wondering if, just maybe, this week's release of the video iPod was too soon." From the article: "Everyone from Microsoft to Comcast - in other words, the usual suspects - is working on or looking at similar pocket-size recorders. At least two companies, Pace Micro Technology of Britain and Samsung of South Korea, have said they plan to introduce models early next year. There is also TivoToGo, a service that can forward recorded shows to various mobile devices, even Sony PSP handheld gaming units ... [anyway,] the video iPod only has it half right: if it took material from the television as readily as it did from the Internet, it could be a blockbuster. But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free? Unlike its musical forebear, the video iPod may not be ready for prime time. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video iPod Apple's First Bad Move?

Comments Filter:
  • Missed the Point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oculus Habent ( 562837 ) * <> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:35PM (#13803790) Journal
    Mr. Siklos seems to miss the point, and the details. Apple substantially downplayed the video capability of the iPod, and the audience reaction was understandably lukewarm considering the limited selection and quality of available content.

    As for the details: There already is a "bogeyman" of online video: BitTorrent. Hell, it's the bogeyman of online everything, depending on who you ask. It's no centralized Napster, but that's mostly due to the lessons learned from Napster.

    There are TV tuners for computers available. How long until it's seamless to drop content from your PVR software into your iTunes Library and onto your iPod? I noticed I can't drag just any video into my iTunes Library, but I haven't played enough to really see about adding my own video.

    Trying to wedge PVR functionality into the portable device is overkill. It's a player. Let the computer do the work... that's why it's there.
    • Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:40PM (#13803829)
      QuickTime Pro will export MP4 QVGA video with the new "Export for iPod" function. On a Mac, it comes up with an iTunes icon and a double click puts it in iTunes and read for the iPod (my new iPod hasn't come in yet, but I imagine there will be no problems). I've already converted a few shows I exported from my eyeTV.

      I wanted a 60 GB iPod anyway, and would have bought one without video - the video is just an extra, like the games in the original iPod, or contacts in the 2G/3G/4G, or photos in the 4G+.
      • Exactly... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by msauve ( 701917 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:57PM (#13805020)
        What the original comment totally missed is that it is not a video iPod, it is an iPod with video. It has everything expected of an iPod, and more (smaller size, bigger screen, more storage, more battery life).

        Whether or not selling videos for it becomes successful, it's simply a new and improved iPod, and that alone is enough.

        Now, if the video capabilities successfully create a market, Apple wins even more. It doesn't make sense for them to ignore that unproven market, when it's obvious that competitors won't. If the market doesn't materialize, Apple has only lost some relatively minor development costs and a couple of bucks/unit in COG.

    • Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Interesting)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:43PM (#13803862)
      Trying to wedge PVR functionality into the portable device is overkill. It's a player. Let the computer do the work... that's why it's there.

      Sorry but I love the fact that my portable video player also acts as a PVR. I don't have to re-encode video to play on it and look correct, I don't have to have a Tivo and use "Record to VCR" or Tivo2Go if I don't want to, and I don't have to pay an additional $100+ on a decent PVR card to record content that I'm just putting on a portable device.

      It's apparent to me that plenty of people are speculating on how moving content to portable devices will work and how well it will work. I'm not speculating as I do it every day with my Archos AV400.

      Having a built in PVR is a GOOD THING.
      • by SmittyTheBold ( 14066 ) <[deth_bunny] [at] []> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @04:42PM (#13805247) Homepage Journal
        Pardon me if I'm being daft, but how does in-built PVR functionality really benefit you with a portable device? I take my iPod with me everywhere, especially for work. Since I don't exactly take my home antenna (satellite, cable, whatever) with me wherever I go, the PVR wouldn't have a chance to do its job. I need my PVR to get shows I miss when I'm out, for chrissakes. Leave me with a dedicated PVR that can sit at home and worry about catching my shows when I can't do it myself, then let me sync the two devices.
      • I think everybody should go watch the Oct 12 video on the Apple website. For one thing, it has the Eminem add that was pulled. But more importantly everyone should sit down and pay close attention to what the iMac does now and how Steve compared the remote that comes with it to the MS Media Center remotes. Now is anybody really going to use a 17 inch iMac as a TV replacement? Probably not. Maybe in the kitchen, but I doubt it.

        So is Steve just smoking crack here? Of course not. Now consider the Apple 30" cinema display hooked up to that remote. Things become a bit more compelling, don't they? Am I saying that Apple is going to make a Tivo? They might, but I'm guessing they won't. Here's why. The broadcasters hate Tivo. To them, Tivo means they just gave away the show AND the viewer skipped the ads. Same goes for BitTorrent, which has content producers frightened even more. Apple is offering them an alternative. Try to capture some of the Tivo/BT market by selling the show a day later with no ads. That way the broadcaster gets paid, and paid fast. The home viewer can watch the show on their Apple set top box or on the iPod. My guess is that the iTunes video store will start to grow to include older shows and eventually movies.

        One thing nobody has mentioned is HD. Obviously the current iPods can't do it, but it won't be long. Apple is playing this smart, leveraging the popularity of the iPod and iTunes to establish the relationships with content producers that will get them on board.

        Finally, another thing that nobody has mentioned is video in the car. If you have kids you know that a DVD player is not the best solution in the world. Not only do you have to mess with disks, but many children's disks are only about 20 minutes long and looping that over and over again on a long drive will make you want to murder Thomas, Percy, Gordan, and even Edward. What if instead you could put all your kids' shows on an iPod and hook that up to the screen in the car instead? Parents across the nation will go nuts for this and will download content just to keep themselves sane by avoiding repetition. I know that if I get one of these I'm going to rip all the Sesame Street and Thomas DVDs we have to it immediately and then park the thing in the car. And yes you can do it, just not with Apple software, for now at least.
      • by Greedo ( 304385 )
        Sorry but I love the fact that my portable video player also acts as a PVR.

        Why? The iPod doesn't rip your music, so why should it rip your video?

        Don't you see? The PVR functionality is being built into the desktops (I'll bet a revised Mac mini with TV in is in the future, if not a dedicated media center box). And, just like you let the desktop to the ripping and sync to the iPod for music, so to will it likely be for video.

        My 0.02
    • by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:02PM (#13803988)
      Here's some iPod history of all the bad moves apple has made with the ipod that clearly show how successful it can't be. except it still is.

      Original iPod 2001
      "Too expensive ($400)"
      "Can't use regular batteries"
      "No PC support"
      "No Games"
      "Big flop.. Apple is through"

      Second generation 10/20 gig iPods 2002 (PC support)
      "Too expensive"
      "Can't use regular batteries"
      "The 10 gig will cannibalize 20 gig sales"
      "Big flop.. Apple is through"

      Third generation 10/15/30 gig iPods 2003 w/ITMS and docking
      "Too expensive"
      "No one wants to buy just one song"
      "Not enough titles in ITMS"
      "10 gig will cannibalize 15 gig sales"
      "Big flop.. Apple is through"

      iPod mini 4 gig (end of 2003)
      "Too expensive" ($249)
      "It's ugly"
      "Will cannibalize iPod sales"
      "Not enough storage"
      "Big flop.. Apple is through"

      Fourth generation 20/40 gig iPod 2004 (Clickwheel)
      HP Branded iPod
      iPod Photo (40/60 gig)
      U2 black iPod (October)
      "Too expensive" ($299/$399, $499/$599 for photo)
      "HP will cannibalize Apple sales"
      "No one wants little photos on an iPod"
      "Black iPod is ugly"
      "Big flop.. Apple is through"

      iPod Shuffle 2005
      Second generation iPod mini 4/6 gig
      "One gig shuffle is too expensive" ($149)
      "No screen"
      "4 gig mini will cannibalize Shuffle sales"
      "6 gig mini will cannibalize iPod sales"
      "Shuffles will cannibalize mini sales"
      "Big flop.. Apple is through"

      iPod nano 2005 (September)
      "Too expensive" ($199/$249)
      "Should have kept the mini"
      "Will cannibalize iPod sales"
      "No one will buy the Shuffle now"
      "Big flop.. Apple is through"

      iPod with Video Playback 30/60 gig (October 2005)
      "Too expensive" ($299/$399)
      "No one wants little videos"
      "Big flop.. Apple is through"
      • by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbender@gmail ... minus physicist> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:16PM (#13804075)
        Hilarious! :) You forgot the obligatory iPod flop prediction though: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
        • Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:21PM (#13804475) Homepage Journal
          Heh. Some day they'll do wireless, and they'll take over the world. Wait; that's google, isn't it?

          Anyway, here's my sample of one: A year or so back, my wife and I decided to terminate our cable service. We'd only watched TV for news and movies, really. Here in the US, TV news has long since become a joke, and when came out, we realized very quickly that it gave us more news from more viewpoints in 10 minutes than TV did in an evening of news shows. And we subscribed to Netflix, eliminating the movies angle. We realized that the only thing we'd turned the TV on for months was the Jon Stewart's Daily Show, and even that had become available in video clips on the political blogs a day after a show was aired. We asked ourself "Why are we paying for this?"

          So we switched to DSL (speakeasy), including VoIP. Half the price for a real IP link with no port blocking. They're very nice if the local power structure permits them to sell in your neighborhood.

          Meanwhile, we'd been following the iPod stories, bue hadn't seen anything that persuaded us to buy one of the cute little gadgets. Now, with the announcement of videos, my wife (the real old-movie freak) is mentioning "iPod" once or twice a day. My bet is that she'll wait until she sees a couple in action, and then she'll have to buy one. She'll then drop her Netflix subscription. She'll just download the movies to her Mac PB, where she'll watch most of them. Some will go to the iPod. Depending on the price they settle on, this will probably be comparable to the Netflix subscription price, but a lot more convenient.

          Now if they'd just incorporate a "smartphone" (phone + calendar), with full-time internet access, it'd be an instant sell. We could carry just the one electronic barnacle.

          And if they'd run OSX internally, I could even program it ...

          (Yeah, I know; linux or freebsd would be better. But what're the chances of either of those? ;-)

          (And while I'm dreaming, how about a browser that works with google maps, and GPS capability? Wouldn't it be fun to work on software that combines these in a wireless gadget?)
          • Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Informative)

            by mrchaotica ( 681592 )
            iTunes videos don't replace a Netflix subscription, because there's hardly any content (and zero full-length movies) as of yet.
            • In the 1990s, much R&D went into video-on-demand and set-top boxes. Everyone had a TV, so everyone assumed the TV would be the communication device of the future. But the market for video-on-demand never really materialized. Why not repurpose all the research for video-on-demand for my mobile phone? Sure, some operators offer some limited, gimicky video (like Verizon's VCast), but imagine a mobile phone service that combined Tivo+Netflix? Since mobile phone bandwidth is limited, maybe we can't have vide
        • by multiplexo ( 27356 ) * on Sunday October 16, 2005 @06:58PM (#13805875) Journal
          Hilarious! :) You forgot the obligatory iPod flop prediction though: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

          Shouldn't that be "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Doesn't support Ogg Vorbis. Lame."?

      • Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Pecisk ( 688001 )
        And yet, you proved what needed to be proven - people wants successful ones to fall, to make mistakes, to proove that Apple is not so 100% right on everything. My pick is that is somehow connected with our wish to protect ourselves from hype, which could can give wrong expetations on something.

        My pick is? Just ingore that. There are usually will be people who will whine, cry, etc. And they will be men of action.
        • Re:Missed the Point (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) * on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:40PM (#13804239)
          It's very true... people want to pick apart (some people, I mean) the guy/gal/company/team/country on top. It's some sort of mechanism to either defend that they haven't backed the wrong horse (i.e. bought a Creative player heheh.) or that they somehow identify with the "underdog."

          It's alright if someone is skeptical of something, because that's healthy. It's just when people get vitriolic that it "becomes sour-grapes x 10." I think a healthy skepticism is a good way to protect onesself from the hype, but just going into the minutiae of details of how it is such a "bad idea" makes a person seem bitter.

          I certainly am not all that interested in the video capabilities of the iPod, but that doesn't mean I won't buy another one. I'm thinking of getting a new one in a few months anyway... my 2nd Gen iPod doesn't have a dock connector, and it seems all the new gadgets for the iPods are becoming dock-centric. I guess when I get another one will depend on what gadget is a must-have (heheh), or when it comes time to replace the battery on my iPod again. I think it'll stand a 3rd battery... That unit's been like a tank for many years, despite not feeling like one.

          If a new iPod keeps the competitors on their toes, that's great. If it makes the CEO of Creative whine and cry about their own marketshare... it's good for a laugh too.

          • Re:Missed the Point (Score:5, Interesting)

            by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:07PM (#13804398)
            It's very true... people want to pick apart (some people, I mean) the guy/gal/company/team/country on top. It's some sort of mechanism to either defend that they haven't backed the wrong horse or that they somehow identify with the "underdog."

            A poignant observation in an Apple thread. Especially seeing how the popularity of the iPod seems to function as Ultimate Vindication for those who may have 'backed the wrong horse' in the PC platform wars.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:11PM (#13804764)
        Well, here's the problem. The iPod, and the entire Apple experience, is intuitive for a certain kind of person. Artists, fashion mavens, leftists, and other creative personalities can sit in front of a fifth-generation iPod and just "get it," but accountants and everyday pencil-pushers don't have a prayer. Unattractive squares should stick to Linux and Windows. Macs are for different thinkers.

        Evidence? .jpg [] *NEW!* .jpg [] *NEW!* .jpg [] *NEW!* .jpg [] pg [] g [] .jpg [] pg [] .jpg [] .jpg [] .jpg [] jpg [] .jpg [] .jpg [] .jpg [] .jpg [] .jpg [] .jpg [] .jpg []

        Versus: [] boothsized0hs.jpg []
    • by doodlelogic ( 773522 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:49PM (#13804641)
      or as the blurb put it: "who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?"

                People who missed taping an episode?
  • by jomas1 ( 696853 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:36PM (#13803794) Homepage
    "Video iPod Apple's First Bad Move? Unlike its musical forebear, the video iPod may not be ready for prime time. "

    First, the ipod was not ready for prime time when it first appeared and yet look at what Apple has accomplished. When the 1st ipod came out in 2001 there was no itunes music store, no cottage industry of ipod accessories, no support for PCs and no cult of ipod. The only way to get music on your ipod was to rip cds yourself or download mp3s and get access to a Mac.

    Now it's 2005 and the ipod is firmly entrenched in the American psyche and it is easy to get audio onto an ipod but difficult to get video on it unless you rip dvds or download optimized movie files yourself. The situation is hardly any different.

    Second, Apple is not selling a Video-ipod or vpod or anything else that emphasizes video. Apple's selling ipods, some of which have video playback capabilities. These other companies are trying to sell hardware that may have no real market.
    • by tepples ( 727027 ) <> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:49PM (#13803910) Homepage Journal

      When the 1st ipod came out in 2001 there was no itunes music store, no cottage industry of ipod accessories, no support for PCs and no cult of ipod. The only way to get music on your ipod was to rip cds yourself or download mp3s and get access to a Mac.

      Now it's 2005 and the ipod is firmly entrenched in the American psyche and it is easy to get audio onto an ipod but difficult to get video on it unless you rip dvds or download optimized movie files yourself. The situation is hardly any different.

      The difference is that in Apple's home country, ripping CDs is legal (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia) while ripping DVDs is illegal under the DMCA (MGM v. 321 Studios).

  • Say what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rosewood ( 99925 ) <(ur.tahc) (ta) (doowesor)> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:37PM (#13803800) Homepage Journal
    People who spend $400 plus accessories and bitch about spending $2 on a missed episode can shampoo my crotch.

    $.99 for a song, 4-5 minutes. $1.99 for a TV show for 40 minutes.
    • Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ScottSCY ( 798415 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:29PM (#13804163)
      " People who spend $400 plus accessories and bitch about spending $2 on a missed episode can shampoo my crotch. $.99 for a song, 4-5 minutes. $1.99 for a TV show for 40 minutes."

      Just shows how overpriced the songs are.
    • Re:Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CrazyTalk ( 662055 )
      Except, the $1.99 TV show you might watch once or twice. The 99 cent song you might listen to 100s of times. Plus, you can transfer songs to CDs to play anywhere. You are actually getting a lot more value for money out of the music.
  • music is the same (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sedyn ( 880034 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:38PM (#13803808)
    "But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?"

    and why would a person download from iTunes when free P2P networks exist?
    • Let's also not forget that recording requires some level of planning, however small. I don't want to have to remember to record something - I've enough "important" things in my life to worry about without having to remember to set my recorder.

      Is it $2 easier for me to download something when I want, to watch when I want, than to remember to set a recorder? For some things, sure - maybe a season premire I want to catch, or maybe for a show that has continuity.
    • by homb ( 82455 )
      But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?

      They totally missed the point. Who would pay? I tell you who would pay. Those who don't have a TV, that's who! Oh yes, it's not a big market today, I understand that. But years from now, when we think of when the TV started dying, that's the date everyone will agree on.
    • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:27PM (#13804510)
      "and why would a person download from iTunes when free P2P networks exist?"

      Some of us charge our time by the hour, and thus know exactly what our time is worth. For me, instantly getting a show that fits on the iPod is worth $2, versus downloading the DivX, transcoding the video, and doing whatever else is necessary to get it on the iPod. Contrast this to the P2P music networks, which provide me with ready-to-throw-on-the-iPod mp3s.

      For many people, it may not be worth $2, but for me it probably is.

  • and ring tones? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:40PM (#13803831) Homepage Journal
    And why do people pay $1.99 for a ring tone that lasts 30 seconds? As expensive as $2 sounds for a TV episode sounds, you can never underestimate the wastefulness of the consumer. I don't think Apple will find any problems making money off of selling videos, as long as they have reasonable co-operation from networks, and provide enough free content themselves, someone out there will spend the money.
    • Ring Tones are important to me because when I'm intrupting a meeting with my mobile, I need a professional sounding ringtone to salvage any credibility. Or when I'm in a lecture hall during an examination. Or on a bus, where I'm sure that people want to hear the 82nd remix of "fly me to the moon." And my personal favourite, during wedding vows, I'm sure the couple wants to hear "She Fuckin' Hates Me." But, hey, that's just me.
  • by JayDiggity ( 70168 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:41PM (#13803837) Homepage
    My take on all of this is that people still want an iPod. If they want bigger than a 4 GB player to store their music, then they will go with a full-size iPod. Before, you got 20 GB or 60 GB and no video. Now, for the same price, you get 30 or 60 GB AND video. You pay the same price and you get more features. I agree with people who say "Who will use video on the iPod?" But when you realize that the iPod is a music player FIRST and a video player is an added bonus, it makes more sense. If you want a high capacity music player, then you want an iPod - everyone wants an iPod; they're cool. But then the video playing is just an added bonus. If you want a high capacity video player, then you'd get something else.
    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:13PM (#13804777) Homepage
      But when you realize that the iPod is a music player FIRST and a video player is an added bonus, it makes more sense. If you want a high capacity music player, then you want an iPod - everyone wants an iPod; they're cool. But then the video playing is just an added bonus.

      Smartest post I've read here. Apple was doing well with the iPod, but they screwed up by releasing the a new iPod, with all the old iPod's features, plus some more, at the same price? Huh?

      From the consumer's point of view, the iPod has lost *nothing* with the addition of these features-- except maybe some of the bulk, since these new ones are *thinner*. If the iPod was a good device before, then these features don't make it any more complicated or problematic. It just adds a couple features which you might not use. There's no downside here.

  • by Bugmaster ( 227959 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:41PM (#13803840) Homepage
    the video iPod only has it half right: if it took material from the television as readily as it did from the Internet, it could be a blockbuster.
    I should point out that Archos [] has been selling devices [] that do just that, for quite some time now. I'm sure there are other companies that do this, as well. Archos's video recorders are a lot bulkier than the standard iPod, though... But I haven't seen the video iPod, so I can't compare them directly.
    • I should point out that Archos has been selling devices that do just that, for quite some time now. I'm sure there are other companies that do this, as well.

      Yup, I can name another one. Neuros has had multimedia player [] with PVR abilities for a while as well now. Better yet they have exceptionally good OSS support, including open source firmware on many of their devices, and an open development process.

  • I might pay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cyberformer ( 257332 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:41PM (#13803842)
    If the download was fast and I'd missed my favorite show, I might pay $1.99 to see it. It's true that the shows are also likely to be on BitTorrent, but that has legal issues, and the download might not be reliable. For people who don't watch much TV, the occasional $1.99 would work out cheaper than buying a TiVO and a subscription.

    I assume you'll be able to watch it on a PC or a TV, not just a tiny iPod screen.

  • It's the content. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:42PM (#13803846)
    Mark Cuban seems to think [] that's the important part of the video iPod. As do [] others [].
  • Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)

    by yardbird ( 165009 ) * on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:43PM (#13803852) Homepage
    The video iPod is getting all of the attention, but that's not the whole story.

    Apple is moving into the living room. That means video, and Apple is getting started with a three-pronged strategy:

    * Front Row []
    * iTunes Video Store []
    * iPod with video []

    It would not make sense for Apple to make the move into video and leave the video iPod out of it.
  • by dracken ( 453199 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:44PM (#13803871) Homepage
    ....sums it up quite nicely

    "And there are chewy, unresolved legal questions raised by gadgets like the PocketDISH or Slingbox" ipod is too much of a cash cow for apple to risk lawsuits. Do you think that the MPAA will sit around doing nothing if Apple introduced an ipod capable of recording movies ? Downloading video content from itunes is above the board, legal and safe (from apple's standpoint). And this is not the last ipod that apple is ever going to introduce. How about Mac mini --> Front row [] --> Sync recorded shows to video ipod ? They have the mini, they have front row, they have video ipod, the next step is too easy. Trust me, this take it slow approach is not because of lack of vision.
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:45PM (#13803874) Homepage Journal
    is not releasing higher def content. I realize that putting higher def content on the video iPod which cannot display it is dumb, but Apple already solved the "differenet resolutions for different devices" problem with the iPod photo. Obviously it would be pointless to put your 5 megapixel pictures on the iPod photo which cannot display it, it would waste space and more importantly, it would waste power because you have to spin the hard drive more just to load data that you will end up not really even using anyway. But at the same time you want to keep all those 5 megapixel pictures on your computer where you can use that kind of resolution. How did Apple solve the problem? Simple, when you first set up your iPod photo for pictures, iTunes automatically converts your photo library into a size that is usable on your iPod. Not the quickest of processes, but if you let it run in the background it shouldn't matter. I don't understand why they couldn't do this with the video content either. I bought a music video just to see what it would look like, and while it wasn't HORRIBLE I can find better looking content through other sources...
    • Yes, I initially assumed the same thing -- Apple would sell SD-quality video suited for TV viewing -- and iTunes would automatically reencode it for use with the iPod.

      However, on second thought, perhaps this wouldn't be technically reasonable. It would take too long (especially on G4 Macs), or may not produce the quality and optimization desired. So, Apple may need to offer downloads with two quality levels.

      Also, I'm sure the low quality of the videos played a large roll in getting Disney to back the projec
    • mod parent up (Score:4, Interesting)

      by chocolatetrumpet ( 73058 ) <slashdot@jonath[ ... m ['anf' in gap]> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:28PM (#13804156) Homepage Journal
      Apple is LOSING MY MONEY because of content resolution.

      I would have been happy to support LOST by buying episodes through the iTMS - even though they're more expensive than the DVD and have no special features - but if and only if the they come in the same widescreen format and resolution that I can get from.. :cough: other sources.

      I'm standing here waving my money in the air and - no one's selling what I want to buy.

      The same situation goes for the music store - the new album by The Bad Plus is available, however it's only available in compressed AAC. I want the best quality - I actually want it in DVD-Audio. My other option is a copy protected "CD" that I refuse to purchase. Blah.
  • by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:47PM (#13803892) Homepage Journal
    But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?

    The best reason I can think of is that you don't have to think of it in advance. You don't have to know when it's on; you don't have to remember to program your TiVo/VCR. You can say any time, "Oh, yeah, I think I'd like to watch that" and download it.

    Or to put in another way: true cable a la carte, which consumers have been demanding for years and unable to get.

    The end of "Oh, was that good? I missed it!" would be a revolution in television.
  • Who would? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:47PM (#13803893) Homepage
    But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?

    Er... those of us without cable television? Who will never have cable television, because we absolutely refuse to pay to view commercials?
    • Re:Who would? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Xugumad ( 39311 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:20PM (#13804468)
      Or, and I suspect this is a large group, those of us who would quite like to ditch cable (well, satellite in my case) television. What Apple are offering isn't perfect - I'm not likely to want to watch these over and over again, let alone deal with actually storing all the shows I want, so being able to pay for a cheaper DRM'd version, with a license to watch the show twice (not once - watch once stuff is just an invitation for a powercut halfway through, or similar).

      In the meantime, I get about half my TV shows by DVD rental, which works as a good comprimise.
  • Online Music Vids (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Macka ( 9388 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:48PM (#13803897)

    On the contrary, I think that Apple may be tapping into a potential gold mine. There isn't much of a retail industry around online music video content at the moment. Certainly not in the same way that there is for music. If they can make the online purchase of music videos as ubiquitous as they have done for music, they stand to make a mint.

    Then there's "porn in your pocket, anytime, anywhere". Could be just the thing to spice up marital play time after the kids have gone to bed ;-)

  • It's not difficult (Score:4, Informative)

    by sockonafish ( 228678 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:53PM (#13803937)
    The latest QuickTime release has an Export setting for the iPod video. If you can get a video on to your computer that QuickTime can understand (which may require the use of things like Flip4Mac []), you can definitely watch it on your iPod video.

    Of course, there are other tools for re-encoding to H.264 and MPEG4, as well.
  • by mitchell_pgh ( 536538 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:55PM (#13803950)
    "But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?"

    My response: "But who would pay $.99 to download a song when I could hook up to the radio and download the song for free?"

  • by hellfire ( 86129 ) <.deviladv. .at.> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @12:59PM (#13803975) Homepage
    Most people want to highlight why it's bad. With music, as most slashdotters recognise, it's far more portable than video. You can listen to video while driving to work, travelling, standing in line, exercising, jogging, etc. Video requires eyeballs, of course, which are often doing other things. It might work while travelling on a train or plane, standing in line, or exercising, but video is not workable on 40% of the list I mentioned


    1) People do want to take video with them. Take a look at the recent portable kid video players. They've mostly been crap, but they are for kids who don't care as much about quality, and for parents who want to occupy their children on long trips and commutes. Also, if you are riding the train to work every day, why not get that extra episode in during the commute?

    2) Get into the market now and define the standard everyone has to beat. Those kid players I mentioned were dismissed as toys. The iPod has a mystique as a sexy "entertainment device." The video isn't all that bad, for that size of a screen anyway, and you don't need high quality video for Desperate Housewives, it's a dialog and situationally driven show.

    Apple is always on the edge. If they are first to market, a lukewarm response as the front runner is just as good as a strong success in a large field of competitors. Now the competitors have to play catchup while Apple surges forward with new ideas.

    3) It's still a 30/60 GB audio iPod. The high end iPods before video could practically be replaced by the shuffle and Nano because those two fill strong niches and are just about perfect for their market segment. The high end iPod needed an update to justify it's existence. In this manner, Apple keeps the high end and justifies distributing new versions. It's similar to the idea of putting a camera in a phone. It won't but hugely useful but it will be cute and people will eventually catch on and want to have it.

    Personally, I don't want a Video iPod for any of these reasons and I'm a touch of a videophile so the screen will be way too small for me. Come back to me when someone creates widely available sunglasses that project an image for me that looks like a 30 inch widescreen TV that no one else can see and I'll buy it.

    However, in terms of the market, this isn't all that bad as people make it out to be. The NY times smells that, unlike the other products, the video iPod is not a huge smash, and therefore wants to start the FUD right away, just like any other sensationalistic ad-driven media whore of a news paper.
  • A killer product (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dexter77 ( 442723 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:08PM (#13804019)
    "But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free"

    That must be one of the most stupid comments I've ever read. There are about 4 500 million people on this planet who can't record it from television without a satellite disc. Getting something like Lost from an online store is something I've been waiting for ages. It's not about some certain series, it's about same philosophy as in iTunes, there's a never-ending library of albums that you can download when ever you want.

    Since VCDs became leechable online, I've downloaded thousands of movies. Last year alone I lost two terabytes of movies in hard disk failures. I'm sick and tired of downloading and archiving everything by myself. It has nothing to do with the money. I can't watch everything when it comes out and especially non-main-stream movies vanish from the Internet in couple of months. There's no other way than download and archive it by yourself, if you wan't to watch it eventually. Ofcourse I could order the same thing from a DVD-shop, but takes over a week. When I want to watch something, I want to do it that day, otherwise 'mood for the movie' is gone.

    If iTunes starts to sell movies and series, I'm in! 1-2euros per episode is not much. A good set of pay-tv channels cost 30-50euros/month (atleast where I live). That's about 40e/2e = 20 episodes / month, which is about a season of any tv-series. Therefore, you could buy twelve seasons of tv-episodes for the price of a set of pay-tv channels. At the moment there are barely six series running that I watch, sometimes even less.

    And about the video iPod. Fancy technical journalists are comparing it to those pocket tvs that existed over 10 years ago. They didn't sell that well. But has anything changed? Hell yes! I owned one of those crappy tvs at the time. It consumed a set of AA-batteries in two hours and its LCD screen was something like 80x60 pixels. You could barely read subtitles. And they're comparing those to movie iPod.. if it works even half as well as music iPod, it's gonna be a killer product! Mark my words.
    • by pi_rules ( 123171 ) *
      Good God you're onto something here...

      I don't watch TV, seriously. I still have cable though for those rare times when I do. My youngest brother got me hooked on Smallville, so I watched the DVDs of past seasons. I got turned onto Firefly too... those are the -only- shows I watch. It's nice to have C-SPAN but I can stream that online for nothing.

      Oh, did I mention Smallville isn't carried by my cable co and Firefly is off the air? Yeah... still wondering why I have cable.

      The only time I turn the TV on f
  • by Pliep ( 880962 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:09PM (#13804025) Homepage
    As Jobs has stated 3 times; video is a BONUS on top of a normal music player. the iPod has been, is, and will be a MUSIC player. Just like the additional funtionality of being able to display photo's from the photo library, or calendars and contacts, it can now display video from the video/movies library. It is NOT A VIDEO iPod. It's a music player that also happane to play some video formats. It is NOT a dedicated handheld video machine. When Apple built calendars and contacts into teh iPod, did ANYONE headline "Apple's PDA iPod a bad move?"
  • by JakiChan ( 141719 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:12PM (#13804050)
    It's the new iPod. It just happens to do video.

    From my point of view they announced the 5th gen iPod, which some were waiting for. For the same price as the 4th gen 60GB iPod color you get one with a better screen, *way* more battery life (going from 12 to 20 hrs) and smaller. Yeah, it does video, but that's not what it's really about. If the feature takes off then expect to see something new, but if it doesn't then who cares - it still costs the same.

    The new iPod is what I was holding off for - a regular iPod using the latest PortalPlayer chipset to up the battery life, and maybe some new features. I suppose they might have waited for Hitachi's new 80gig perpendicular drive to up the content, but otherwise I'm happy.

    And BTW, I ordered white because it's the One True iPod color. Anyone who orders black is a heretic and should be beaten.
  • GRRR!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ajservo ( 708572 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:16PM (#13804077)
    This glass is only half full!

    I want it thrown out! Give me one that's half empty!

    Come on. The device isn't even out yet.

    I see this as a great opportunity for the smaller people out there to provide unique content. Podcast subscriptions should point out that people don't want "popular" all the time. What's in itunes' top 20 podcasts?

    There's only 2 podcasts that could be tied to a commercial show. Everything else is talk, news, or NPR!

    I see a forbear of people willing to give original content a chance here. It's worked out well for ifilm and atom films, why couldn't it work here?

    The paid content will come. It's a revenue stream, and there's nothing to suggest that other studios wouldn't follow. It's easy money and they don't have to produce a physical product unlike a DVD. If NBC gets their act together, they'll get WB up with them and get Friends on there. You want to see sales? Get that or Simpsons on there, and you've filled the ipods of every potential future client. That and some CNN broadcast videos and no one will ever complain.

    The only misstep I think they made with the ipod is the current paid content. LOST is a very dark show. It's not easy to distinguish jungle environments on a small screen. They should have started with a lineup of more comedy and less drama. They could put "Whose Line Is It Anyway" on there and it would have been a lot better choice that something from the disney channel.
  • by allanc ( 25681 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:26PM (#13804151) Homepage
    Okay, here's what a lot of people aren't quite getting:
    1. It's not a 'Video iPod', it's just an iPod. This iPod is replacing the previous bunch of iPods. It's the same price, with slighty better features. And it's smaller than the old top-of-the-line iPods.
    2. Video is an extra bonus feature.

    There is no downside here if you don't think of it as a dedicated video player but rather just think of it as a music player that can also view videos. Apple isn't bringing a video player to market too early, they're bringing out a new version of their extremely popular music player which will also give them the opportunity to capture a big chunk of the portable video market if and when it ever actually appears.

    My main complaints with a "Video iPod" when the idea was first breached was that I didn't want to have a player that was too bulky to use as a normal music player like I do with my current 4th Gen 20gig iPod. What Apple actually came out with was a player that was less bulky than the old iPod for the exact same price. And while I wouldn't want to watch movies on the iPod screen, I would be up for watching episodes of television shows and video podcasts (e.g., Rocketboom and the like) on it.

    Far from being a mistake, Apple has taken the crappy situation of how to market a portable video player where there's no real portable video player market and has reduced it to the problem of how to sell a music player, which they already know the solution to.
    • Bravo! Applause! You've got it spot on. This isn't a *video* iPod. It's an iPod that just happens to play video. 99% of the use cases will be the same as before. It's a hard disk music player and useable as such. In the car, walking, at work, whatever. It's just that if you happen to find yourself with some time to kill on a train, or in a plane say, you *can* watch something.

      The real problem with *any* video player is the use case. You can listen to music anywhere and while you're doing other thi
  • by jZnat ( 793348 ) * on Sunday October 16, 2005 @01:46PM (#13804264) Homepage Journal
    The iRiver H300 series has been able to do this for how long? I'd have to say between 1.5 and 2 years. Yes, the support is pretty minimal as they have to be re-encoded in a smaller resolution and in some sort of MPEG standard format, but nonetheless, iRiver has been way ahead of Apple when it comes to all around media jukeboxes. They also have a bulkier version that holds 40 GB and 60 GB that can natively (that is, using the firmware that comes with it rather than the European or Japanese/Korean versions) play movies as well, and at the cost of or less than that of the Photo iPod. Personally, I never really found it to be useful to be able to watch TV shows, movies, and/or porn on a small screen (even using the ginormous PSP and its 2-3 hour battery) no matter how portable.

    With the advent of all this newer and better HD technology (at least the ones that aren't crippled with DRM), I really fail to see the reason to want to downgrade to a lowres, limited battery, low power sound version of something that could be played on a 60" HD display with 6.1 surround sound ~600 watt speakers, all fibrely connected. Couple that with networking, MythTV to record broadcasted crap, and massive amounts of disk space, and I think you'd laugh your ass off at the thought of using something so primitive as a Video iPod or multimedia jukebox like the iRiver.
  • Commercials (Score:3, Informative)

    by Warlock7 ( 531656 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:03PM (#13804378)
    What do you get with all the other devices that you don't get from the Video iPod?
  • Not the issue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:33PM (#13804547)
    This is precisely the kind of naysaying that was out there about the iPod when it first came out and it was repeated when the iTunes Music Store made its debut and came back with the intro of the iPod Mini. At what point to tech writers finally throw in the towel and admit that they're just pulling these views out of their ass?

    Not very many people were buying music online or music players at the time the iPod came out. But that's irrelevant from what I can tell. It seems to me that Apple finds markets where people think there isn't one by taking a good idea and making it accessible to non-geeks. End of story.

    There are other analogs out there to this. Remember what the Internet was like prior to the World Wide Web and Netscape and AOL (shudder) making it accessible to normal human beings? The popularity of the Internet utterly exploded when those came about because suddenly non-geeks could use it. Prior to that, I bet lots of people who use the web on a daily basis would have claimed no need for a computer in their life. A market was created by de-geeking it.

    Once they've done that and once they do it in a way that makes sense to people who don't live and work 24/7 behind a keyboard, then they've got a hot product on their hands and a market where nobody saw one before. That's why all these "iPod killers" that have come and gone have failed to make a dent in Apple's dominance. It's not the hardware superiority. It's the overall design, the iPod and how easy it is to use with iTunes and the music store and how well designed it is and the interface and blah blah blah.

    So anyone who thinks Apple is going to flub the video iPod is failing to learn from history. Now that TV shows can be downloaded and watched without having to use torrents or Usenet or complicated tools to reassemble large files or download codecs that make it playable, it will certainly be a success. And there are loads of people out there more than happy to pay $2 to avoid all that hassle.

  • by idlake ( 850372 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @02:52PM (#13804655)
    The new iPod is indeed not very good for video, but that doesn't matter: none of the other video devices are very good either. By adding video to their MP3 player now, in a simple way, Apple will get exposure and feedback that they will use to improve the device. Give them a couple of iterations to get it right.
  • Screw TV. That's a neat feature, but not why it's going to be a big seller. Its big market is parents with digital cameras. Here's a case study based on my own life.

    We bought a pocket-sized midrange digital camera last spring, with a single 1gb memory card. Like most midrange digital cameras, ours can capture 5 megapixel images and it can record continuous video at TV resolutions up to the limit of its memory. An empty 1gb card can hold abot 700 5-megapixel images or about 700 seconds of video in any combination. It's so powerful and so small that we have pretty much abandoned our other film and video cameras.

    We have kids. Kids do cute stuff which we want to show grandma, so we take gobs of digital stills and video. Grandma lives over the river and through the woods and has neither broadband internet nor even a computer. But grandma does have a TV. So to show grandma videos or unprinted stills at her house, we must have a portable player that connects to the TV. The camera came with a cable that lets it output to a TV and it works well enough for playback of both still and video images. The playback interface is rudimentary, but it works so long as someone familiar with the camera is running the show.

    But there's a problem with this. When we have the camera full of images to show grandma, we have little or no room on the memory card with which to take more photos or video of our kids or grandma's myriad other grandkids. This is a much bigger problem than those without kids might think. :-)

    To solve this problem, we could buy more memory cards and swap them in and out of the camera. It would suck for usability: "Hang on while I swap cards... blast, that's not the right one either. Honey, which card has the video of baby's first cookie?"or "Yeah, I forgot to turn the camera off before I put in the card... but why is the card blank now?" It'd also rapidly become very expensive. Gigabyte SD cards cost about $75 each at Costco, last I looked.

    For the price of four additional 1 gig cards, I could get a 30 gig iPod photo. For the price of six, I could get a 60 gig model and still take the kids to see Wallace and Gommit. With even the 30 gig model, we could cart all of our photo and video library to Grandma's house or wherever else we go. We could keep the camera empty and ready to shoot pics of the cousins even while playing videos for granny, instead of tying it to the TV and running down its battery as a rudimentary playback device. And I bet the video iPod's UI will be simple enough that grandma herself can browse the content, instead of one of us running the show while boring her with a typical slideshow monologue.

    We needs a video iPod, precious. And we are far from alone in this need.

    And that's why TV is just a marketing gimmick. Sure, they'll make money on video download sales. But that's not the killer app... that's just a demonstration that will make the general public take notice of the device's capability to play back anything. Apple is first to market with a general digital media playback device that has a grandma-compliant user interface, and they have incredible brand recognition at the outset. They are going to make an absolute killing off of the digital camera user base, which is just going to keep getting bigger.

    This will not be a flop.
  • by sbate ( 916441 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:13PM (#13804775)
    The pornpod will be a yanking success. While you will not want to be watching porn in the Mall (according to CNN) you will be subscribing to loads of serial porn. Go porn go! Once again porn drives innovation.
  • First? (Score:3, Informative)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:41PM (#13804935) Homepage Journal
    Well "first bad move" implies that Apple has not ever made any bad moves. But there are numerous bad movies Apple has made, Apple almost completely collapsed in the mid-90s. Thier licensing of 3rd party manufactures, thier game console, the refusal to switch to a protected mode operating system despite having a processor with a powerful MMU. Apple's previous attempts at making a "server".
  • Too early? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JVert ( 578547 ) <{corganbilly} {at} {}> on Sunday October 16, 2005 @03:51PM (#13804983) Journal
    Wasn't the ipod before the itunes store? I swore it took a while for ipod to become the portable music standard. Rio was king for a while, ivideo is the first move, these are still baby steps and I think apple knows what they are doing, they keep it fresh and extend the fad.
  • For the kids! (Score:3, Informative)

    by SpookyFish ( 195418 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @04:20PM (#13805139)
    Surprised this has not been talked about more.

    $300 for a viPod
    $200 for a 9" screen it docks with in the car
    $ 6 to put a few new kiddies shows on it just as you are heading out the door

    Hours of bliss while driving to the parents for the holidays: Priceless

    Most of the time you are going to use it just like a non video ipod, but having the feature added on does not suck.
  • by fz00 ( 466988 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @04:41PM (#13805243) Homepage
    This is typical Apple bashing that we see every quarter. The formula is some pundit picks out the next "threat" to iPod's dominance in the hopes that this will be the quarter that he will be hailed as the person that had the "foresight" to predict's Apple's demise and save his investors lots of money. Before it was the fact that other players that had "more features" which only served to confuse users that wanted something simple. Then it was players that had FM radio.. you know that broadcast medium that plays the same rotation of 20 songs between commercials. Then it was Microsoft's mafia of mediocre media devices, which have yet to get off the ground. Then it was the cell phone. You know, the same cell that can't keep a connection for more than 10 minutes was supposed somehow become the streaming platform that crushed the iPod. Since these pundits have had so much trouble finding another company that can destroy iPod's dominance, they must now look at the only enemy that could possibly defeat it... ITSELF. Problem is, Apple's strategy is perfectly brilliant. First off, they picked television shows instead of movies. I dismissed the video iPod at first because I agree that no one wants to watch movies on a two inch screen. BUT, catching up on a television show you missed is a completely different thing. The primary goal of downloading a television show is to get fill in information before the next episode comes. If that means watching it on a small screen so be it. With the video iPod you get to catch up on your show on the subway or during a lunch break. This is a good thing and a winner that no one else thought of doing. The biggest loser in my opinion is AOL because for years they've been sitting on a huge library of content that they could done the same thing with YEARS AGO. But instead, piracy paralysis kept them from doing anything. Now AOL has egg on its face as it watches Steve Jobs gloat on stage as the *forefather* of video download distribution. AOL could have been giving its client away for free to broadband users and used it as a storefront to download this library. But they failed to sieze the opportunity and they have no one to blame but themselves.
  • Silly Argument (Score:3, Informative)

    by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @05:02PM (#13805356) Homepage
    But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?

    Who would pay $0.99 to download a song from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your radio and record that same song for free?

    But wait, people do pay $0.99 to download a song from iTunes. It seems the convenience of downloading the song outweighs the inconvenience of recording it yourself.

    Even more myopic, the author neglects that in the "same episode free" scenario, Apple only makes money on the initial sale of the iPod. In the "pay $1.99" scenario, Apple keeps making money after the initial sale of the iPod. Why would Apple encourage the former at the expense of the latter?

    The reality is that Apple isn't the first company to produce a handheld video device. Treo can play videos. PSP can play videos. iRiver can play videos. Getting the content onto those devices isn't a walk in the park. Apple is betting that people will pay for the convenience of iTunes for video. Given their past success with iTunes and MP3s (which are relatively easy to rip) I say their chances are good.

  • Dummy. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @07:29PM (#13806006)
    But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?

    The same people who pay $5-10 a month for program guide info so they can use their TiVo and record the show, instead of using a VCR for free?

    The same people who spend $20 a season to own it on DVD (note: these same people could rip the DVD and convert to a format/resolution for use on their iPod, without having to purchase it again)?

    It's not the content, it's the ease of getting the content.

    Hey, here's an idea, let's pretend the iPod can't play video...

    Mock Press Snippit:

    CUPERTINO- This week, Steve Jobs unvieled an update to Apple Computers popular iPod, currently the world's highest selling digital music player, at a special invitation-only press event. The new models are slightly thinner than the previous generation and have larger color screens. They also boast five hours more estimated battery life, and for the first time are now available in black as well as the original white. Prices are unchanged from the previous models, with the 30GB model priced at $299.95, and 60GB for $399.95.

    Yeah, that has failure written all over it.
  • Apple Versus (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hpavc ( 129350 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @07:50PM (#13806099)
    By these people's same accounts the iPod is overpriced, overrated, the music format is sad, and itunes store model is flawed. The sounds of people complaining that people dont need all that space and the the battery life is terrible and locking people into the apple hardware ... yawn.

    I will agree that some of the ipod product line is a little too much. A few models have been released perhaps that are confusing in the marketplace -- that photo one was a mistake /me thinks.

    The photo aspect is daring, already the the photoblog / podcast stuff seems intersting from what my existing subscriptions have yeilded.

  • by n2rjt ( 88804 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @11:34PM (#13806938) Journal
    Apple has made several bad moves, such as the Lisa and Apple III.
    Apple survived, mainly because of their culture to innovate.
    As others have said better than I can, the Video iPod is probably not a bad move.
    It isn't the first pocket video machine, and isn't the best.
    And who needs a pocket video machine anyway?
    But it is too early to label it a "bad move". The recent history of the iPod makes me think this thing will be wildly successful.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling